# "Party of Death" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810 "2006-06-15T15:35:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/21 "2006-06-15T22:51:25Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > Yes, the whole abortion debate revolves around when someone becomes a person (i.e. at conception? birth? somewhere in between) from the standpoint of deserving human rights and protection under the law. There’s nothing new in this. > > The case for a fetus being considered a person, whether you agree with it or not, is at least significantly stronger than the case for your sperm being persons. Sorry, hit reply too soon. Is this new? It seems to me that it is simply a restatement of the tired old pro-life side of the debate. I was asking the OP (and one of the follow up posters) to clarify what it is about this book that is so new and compelling from the Party of Death book. Are you able to do so, or are you going to continue to throw the old stuff about in (non) response to my specific questions? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/22 "2006-06-16T00:36:11Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Cite? The famous speech by Shylock argued for the humanity of Jews. Let’s use that > [@Willy the Shake](#): > > ``` > Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs > dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with > the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject > to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means > warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer > as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? > If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, > do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? > > ``` Does an embryo have hands? No. Eyes? No. Affections, passions? No. Warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer? No. If you tickle it, it does not laugh. And it does not revenge. And, btw, I wish people wouldn’t quote from _1984_ as if it were a guide to proper politic discourse. That is about as clever as an advertiser using _Won’t Get Fooled Again_ as a jingle. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/23 "2006-06-16T01:39:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The famous speech by Shylock argued for the humanity of Jews. Let’s use that > Does an embryo have hands? No. Eyes? No. Affections, passions? No. Warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer? No. If you tickle it, it does not laugh. And it does not revenge. > > And, btw, I wish people wouldn’t quote from _1984_ as if it were a guide to proper politic discourse. That is about as clever as an advertiser using _Won’t Get Fooled Again_ as a jingle. You don’t want people to reference 1984 but are cool with Shakespeare’s quoting of a antagonist to make your point. Check. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/24 "2006-06-16T02:05:22Z")
1984phorisms are a good deal more cliche than Shakespeare these days. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/25 "2006-06-16T03:23:53Z")
. . . This thread isn’t about autoerotic asphyxiation at all, is it? Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/26 "2006-06-16T04:42:16Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > > [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > > > Yes, the whole abortion debate revolves around when someone becomes a person (i.e. at conception? birth? somewhere in between) from the standpoint of deserving human rights and protection under the law. **There’s nothing new in this**. > > Is this new? It seems to me that it is simply a restatement of the tired old pro-life side of the debate. I was asking the OP (and one of the follow up posters) to clarify what it is about this book that is so new and compelling from the Party of Death book. > > Are you able to do so, or are you going to continue to throw the old stuff about in (non) response to my specific questions? I thought I was _agreeing_ with you that it wasn’t new. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/27 "2006-06-16T05:04:06Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > I thought I was _agreeing_ with you that it wasn’t new. Oh - sorry, I missed that. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/28 "2006-06-16T07:01:16Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > You don’t want people to reference 1984 but are cool with Shakespeare’s quoting of a antagonist to make your point. Check. I’m fine with people referencing 1984. People who use one of the words Orwell invented as an instance of the abuse of language by the haters of freedom in the process of abusing language to limit freedom is what gets me. As for Shakespeare, a cite was requested on what makes a person. Whatever his treatment of Shylock in the play, that quote was not anti-Semitic. ---
**Author:** ![uglybeech](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/82dd89/32.png) [@uglybeech](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/uglybeech)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/29 "2006-06-16T07:17:40Z")
I’m profoundly comfortable with calling blastocysts unpersons. I think it’s absurd that a 100 celled organism be given rights that we don’t accord non-human primates. I think once we’ve given rights to primates, bears, dogs, cats, rats, mosquitos, head lice…then we can begin to worry about blastocysts. Later in development reasonable people can argue. But stem cell research IMHO can only concern a theocrat. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/30 "2006-06-16T12:56:08Z")
> [@uglybeech](#): > > I’m profoundly comfortable with calling blastocysts unpersons. I think it’s absurd that a 100 celled organism be given rights that we don’t accord non-human primates. > > I think once we’ve given rights to primates, bears, dogs, cats, rats, mosquitos, head lice…then we can begin to worry about blastocysts. > > Later in development reasonable people can argue. But stem cell research IMHO can only concern a theocrat. I am not in disagreement with you w/r/t stem cell research. But somewhere in between the embryo stage and birth there is a grey area where I am uncomfortable blithely designating the creatures as non human. Ironically, it wouldn’t be as bad if I were a hardcore Christian, since the creatures would find their reward in Heaven, but since it’s fairly likely we only have one shot at this thing we call “life”, it’s better to not take a chance that we are killing a conscious human, all other things being equal. Except of course all other things are rarely equal. About the only cut-and-dried case I can bring up would be if abortion and premature caesarian are about equal in safety, or at least to the point that the number of lives saved would be equal given the percentages. Of course, people can always find compliant doctors to claim that abortion is a medically-necessary alternative. (Now, someone will bring up the old argument that even if premature birth were as safe as abortion, that the mother and father would then be forced to support the child. For a response to that just look at my previous posting record w/r/t my thoughts on forced child support for “stealth children.”) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/31 "2006-06-16T13:46:13Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > On NPR (right now for me, I presume it is live) the ‘On Point’ program is talking to Ramesh Ponnuru who has written a book entitled ‘The Party of Death’ in which he attacks both the death penalty and abortion (and Hiroshima). He is using a very convincing argument. (Or perhaps he is simply being clever.) I saw the interview on the Daily Show. One of the points Jon was making was the very title of the book implies something negative about those he disagrees with. Fans the fires of contention rather than makes a rational arguement. The other point Jon made brilliantly is linking his pro life arguments to the conservative support for the war. If it is acceptable for there to be so many civilians casualties in the war against terror then why isn’t stem cell research in the war against disease acceptable? I have mixed feelings about abortion but I can’t see how anyone who supports this war can turn around and honestly say “Oh I’m pro life” If you are against abortion because of some sincere reverence for life or even the potential of life, then it seems you would be twice as outraged by this dishonest war as you are about abortion. 2nd; I have people standing with gruesome signs across the street at the clinic fairly often. If people are going to call themselves pro lifers then they’d better be doing something to support the unwanted children that come into this world on a regular basis. If you insist on removing a woman’s right to legally choose abortion then you assume some moral responsibility to care for unwed mothers or unwanted children. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/32 "2006-06-16T15:32:26Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The other point Jon made brilliantly is linking his pro life arguments to the conservative support for the war. > If it is acceptable for there to be so many civilians casualties in the war against terror then why isn’t stem cell research in the war against disease acceptable? > > I have mixed feelings about abortion but I can’t see how anyone who supports this war can turn around and honestly say “Oh I’m pro life” If you are against abortion because of some sincere reverence for life or even the potential of life, then it seems you would be twice as outraged by this dishonest war as you are about abortion. I don’t think this was such a brilliant observation. It’s being discussed in another thread, but I will just mention here that it is much too simplistic to state that these two situations are at all analagous. One might turn it around and say, how can you be against the war, but for embryonic stem cell research? If you care so much about the innocent and helpless dying, how can you deliberately destroy the most innocent and helpless among us? > [@](#): > > 2nd; I have people standing with gruesome signs across the street at the clinic fairly often. If people are going to call themselves pro lifers then they’d better be doing something to support the unwanted children that come into this world on a regular basis. If you insist on removing a woman’s right to legally choose abortion then you assume some moral responsibility to care for unwed mothers or unwanted children. It is a complete myth that pro-life people are only about protesting in front of abortion clinics, and do not help babies once they are brought into the world. Many, many pro-life people are involved in organizations that help mothers who want to have their babies and keep them or give them up for adoption. These organizations provide food, clothing, sometimes a place to live & other needs for mothers & babies. Additionally, they do job training and give information about the appropriate social programs, so the mother has ongoing support. If the mother desires adoption, they help with counseling as well as help facilitate the adoption in a manner that is most comfortable for the mother (finding adoptive parents, deciding on open vs. closed adoptions, etc.) If liberals really cared about “choice,” they would also get involved in these kinds of organizations, so maybe women wouldn’t feel trapped into having an abortion they might not even want. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/33 "2006-06-16T18:17:04Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > One might turn it around and say, how can you be against the war, but for embryonic stem cell research? If you care so much about the innocent and helpless dying, how can you deliberately destroy the most innocent and helpless among us? I think it’s incorrect to even look at stem cells as potential life or “in need” of help. I agree that Stewart’s comparison sounded better than it actually was. > [@](#): > > If liberals really cared about “choice,” they would also get involved in these kinds of organizations, so maybe women wouldn’t feel trapped into having an abortion they might not even want. :rolleyes: In that case I trust you have a cite that they aren’t involved in those programs? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/34 "2006-06-16T18:21:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think it’s incorrect to even look at stem cells as potential life or “in need” of help. I agree that Stewart’s comparison sounded better than it actually was. > > :rolleyes: In that case I trust you have a cite that they aren’t involved in those programs? No more than **cosmosdan** has a cite that _conservatives_ aren’t involved in those programs. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/35 "2006-06-16T18:23:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think it’s incorrect to even look at stem cells as potential life or “in need” of help. I agree that Stewart’s comparison sounded better than it actually was. Sorry…meant to address this point, as well…I wouldn’t necessarily argue with your statement about stem cells…I was just trying to point out that nothing is QUITE as cut and dried as Stewart made it out to be (which I see you acknowledge as well). ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/36 "2006-06-16T23:57:39Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I don’t think this was such a brilliant observation. It’s being discussed in another thread, but I will just mention here that it is much too simplistic to state that these two situations are at all analagous. One might turn it around and say, how can you be against the war, but for embryonic stem cell research? If you care so much about the innocent and helpless dying, how can you deliberately destroy the most innocent and helpless among us? Perhaps, but the obvious difference is that there is some question as to the person hood of embryos and there is absolutely no question about it in the civilians being killed in Iraq. Those who don’t see embryos as little people aren’t contradicting themselves. The point being made was the sanctity of life argument used to argue against stem cell research doesn’t seem to apply to the thousands of people being killed in Iraq. I realize it isn’t a flawless ananlogy, but it’s a pretty good one. > [@](#): > > It is a complete myth that pro-life people are only about protesting in front of abortion clinics, and do not help babies once they are brought into the world. Many, many pro-life people are involved in organizations that help mothers who want to have their babies and keep them or give them up for adoption. These organizations provide food, clothing, sometimes a place to live & other needs for mothers & babies. Additionally, they do job training and give information about the appropriate social programs, so the mother has ongoing support. If the mother desires adoption, they help with counseling as well as help facilitate the adoption in a manner that is most comfortable for the mother (finding adoptive parents, deciding on open vs. closed adoptions, etc.) If liberals really cared about “choice,” they would also get involved in these kinds of organizations, so maybe women wouldn’t feel trapped into having an abortion they might not even want. It was not my intention to imply or support that myth. I know there are good people who are actually doing positive things for single mothers to be and kids. I have great respect for those actions. Are you implying that **no** liberals participate? My point was only that I feel taking action to remove the abortion choice for women holds some moral obligation to help. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/37 "2006-06-17T00:02:28Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No more than **cosmosdan** has a cite that _conservatives_ aren’t involved in those programs. I don’t need a cite for that since **I never said it**. I’d appreciate you not misrepresenting my posts and an apology for this false statement from you. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/38 "2006-06-17T00:11:06Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > IIf you care so much about the innocent and helpless dying, how can you deliberately destroy the most innocent and helpless among us? I care about \*people \* dying. Blastocysts aren’t people. Regardless, it isn’t necessarily hypocritical to support both the Iraq war and stem cell research, or neither, or any combination thereof. More astute was Jon’s question (paraphrased from memory) _“Do you condone imposing what many people consider the equivalent of rape in order to prevent what many people consider the equivalent of murder?”_ ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/39 "2006-06-17T03:17:28Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > I care about \*people \* dying. Blastocysts aren’t people. Regardless, it isn’t necessarily hypocritical to support both the Iraq war and stem cell research, or neither, or any combination thereof. > > More astute was Jon’s question (paraphrased from memory) _“Do you condone imposing what many people consider the equivalent of rape in order to prevent what many people consider the equivalent of murder?”_ It’s so astute that it went over my head. Care to explain? ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/40 "2006-06-17T04:32:36Z")
To clarify, Jon was speaking of abortion rights, not stem cell research when he made that remark. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810.md?page=3)